- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by whodey
I simply await for you to add to my list or reasons. You have yet to do so.
As for evidence, like it or not evidence in a court of law is eye witness testimony. Why do you drag science into the fray? You imply that judges and jurys are incompentent in their decisions if they do not use science as the basis for their verdicts. This is absurd.
"The simplest is that one should believe nothing on blind faith.
Belief should be based on evidence.
Until there is evidence for gods (or anything else) then one should not believe in gods
(or anything else not supported by evidence).
I HAVE presented you with another reason for your list.
Juries are often incompetent but that is not at all what I was saying.
A court of law uses a lower standard of evidence than is permissible in science.
We are discussing the nature of reality and not whether or not a person has committed a crime
and thus we are operating in the realm of science and are bound by it's higher standards of evidence.
I would also reiterate and restate what I implied earlier.
As Pierre-Simon Laplace said "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."
Which was popularised by Carl Sagan as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Claiming that a person stole your car is not an extraordinary claim and does not require extraordinary evidence.
Claiming that there is an omnipotent god who created the universe IS an extraordinary claim and DOES need
extraordinary evidence.
And then we have the very meaning of the word evidence.
Evidence for a proposition must be either only explicable by that claim or be probabilistically most likely to be explained
by that proposition. The strength of the evidence for a particular proposition being how likely it is that that proposition
explains the evidence vs any and all other explanations.
In this instance the strength of eyewitness testimony or personal experience for god would be the probability that
that testimony is due to the existence of god vs the probability that the testimony is explained by something other
than god (anything from hallucinations to space aliens to simply lying).
For personal experience and eyewitness testimony the probability that they are explained by god is VASTLY lower than
the combined probability of every other possible explanation.
Thus, eyewitness testimony or personal experience can't be considered to be evidence for god as god is not even close to
being the most likely explanation for that testimony or experience.
Even if you are the one doing the experiencing or witnessing.
There is currently no evidence for god because there is no fact or observation that we have for which the best or most likely
explanation is that a god exists.
16 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo belief should be based upon evidence? I think I have already stated that I missed stating that evidence must be persuasive enough to embrace.
[b]"The simplest is that one should believe nothing on blind faith.
Belief should be based on evidence.
Until there is evidence for gods (or anything else) then one should not believe in gods
(or anything else not supported by evidence).
So the list has grown to:
1. I do not believe in a God who would (fill in the blank).
2. I do not believe in a God who cannot be proved.
3. I do not believe in a God in whom evidence is not persuasive enough to lead me to such belief.
16 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo what evidence would you have us give to show that God healed someone from an illness? What evidence would you like to be given to show that God has freed the mind of someone held in bondage to fear? What evidence would you like to show that God has birthed a loving heart into a convert? What evidence would you like to show that God has spoken a word to someone?
A court of law uses a lower standard of evidence than is permissible in science.
We are discussing the nature of reality and not whether or not a person has committed a crime
and thus we are operating in the realm of science and are bound by it's higher standards of evidence.
I would also reiterate and restate what I implied earlier.
As Pierre- ...[text shortened]... rvation that we have for which the best or most likely
explanation is that a god exists.[/b]
Hmmm?
16 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeythis is not entirely correct. in significance, eyewitness testimony is somewhere between circumstantial evidence and actual evidence and expert witnesses.
I simply await for you to add to my list or reasons. You have yet to do so.
As for evidence, like it or not evidence in a court of law is eye witness testimony. Why do you drag science into the fray? You imply that judges and jurys are incompentent in their decisions if they do not use science as the basis for their verdicts. This is absurd.
in general practice, both circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony are used to reinforce existing evidence and if you have either, you have a better chance of conviction (though not guaranteed).
in your religion however, eyewitness testimony has more significance. and women count for only half a witness.
16 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyno god has made contact with me.
Which God? Any god.
eyewitness testimony of others doesn't count for much from my perspective. there are also eyewitness testimony of people seeing big-foot and being abducted by aliens.
to date, no eyewitness of gods, bigfoot or alien abductees have been able to present credible evidence for their accounts.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
16 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyI would like to find that one of the items on the list applies to me, but do not see one. I have pretty much given up on trying to articulate one for you. I could try the tack of "...because I do not have a coherent idea of a believable God."
So belief should be based upon evidence? I think I have already stated that I missed stating that evidence must be persuasive enough to embrace.
So the list has grown to:
1. I do not believe in a God who would (fill in the blank).
2. I do not believe in a God who cannot be proved.
3. I do not believe in a God in whom evidence is not persuasive enough to lead me to such belief.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyNone of those things are evidence for god because all of those things are explicable without
So what evidence would you have us give to show that God healed someone from an illness? What evidence would you like to be given to show that God has freed the mind of someone held in bondage to fear? What evidence would you like to show that God has birthed a loving heart into a convert? What evidence would you like to show that God has spoken a word to someone?
Hmmm?
god and all of those things are vastly more likely to be explicable by something other than god.
Let me short circuit this by saying that nothing that has ever been claimed as a miracle performed
by any god at any time in history any where on this planet has ever come even remotely close to
being evidence for god even IF it was shown to actually be an inexplicable event that we couldn't
readily explain with present day science.
17 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyHow interesting. Back when you apparently forgot that you yourself are atheistic with respect to numerous conceptions of god, you rather broadly painted atheists as having the unreasonable demand that the evidence for god needs to be absolutely conclusive to the point of "proof". However, when you are reminded that you yourself are atheistic with respect to numerous conceptions of god, you quickly pull in the much more reasonable demand that the evidence for god needs to be good enough.
Good point, I guess thinking about this I would have to go with:
3. Evidence presented does not sway my belief.
So there ya go, we have one more. 😛
17 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeClaiming that there is a God who created the universe IS NOT an extraordinary"The simplest is that one should believe nothing on blind faith.
Belief should be based on evidence.
Until there is evidence for gods (or anything else) then one should not believe in gods
(or anything else not supported by evidence).
I HAVE presented you with another reason for your list.
Juries are often incompetent but th vation that we have for which the best or most likely
explanation is that a god exists.
claim and DOES NOT need extraordinary evidence because there IS NOT
evidence to the contrary. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
P.S. All evidence we have, points to the existence of an extremely intelligent
and powerful being. We call this being, God.
17 Apr 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritNow this is pretty ironic. Here we have a post basically bashing the significance of eyewitness testimony as evidence, while at the same time conceeding that it IS evidence. LOL.
this is not entirely correct. in significance, eyewitness testimony is somewhere between circumstantial evidence and actual evidence and expert witnesses.
in general practice, both circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony are used to reinforce existing evidence and if you have either, you have a better chance of conviction (though not guarante ...[text shortened]... n however, eyewitness testimony has more significance. and women count for only half a witness.
As for personal testimony being the only evidence, clearly it is not. For example, we have all of creation as evidence. Again, you will say that this is not evidence either no doubt. And again, I will point out that it IS evidence no matter how flimsy of evidence you may think it may be.
17 Apr 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloI make no apology for being biased in my worldview. What drives me nuts, however, are people who try and convince me that they are perfectly open minded by saying they are agnostic.
How interesting. Back when you apparently forgot that you yourself are atheistic with respect to numerous conceptions of god, you rather broadly painted atheists as having the unreasonable demand that the evidence for god needs to be absolutely conclusive to the point of "proof". However, when you are reminded that you yourself are atheistic with respec ...[text shortened]... kly pull in the much more reasonable demand that the evidence for god needs to be good enough.
In short, everyone has a bias and a worldview that seems reasonable to them, from which they build a belief system.
17 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat if you were one of the ancient Israelites and you saw the Red Sea open before you and then close down on the Egyptians? What if you also saw manna fall from heaven?
None of those things are evidence for god because all of those things are explicable without
god and all of those things are vastly more likely to be explicable by something other than god.
Let me short circuit this by saying that nothing that has ever been claimed as a miracle performed
by any god at any time in history any where on this planet h ...[text shortened]... actually be an inexplicable event that we couldn't
readily explain with present day science.
Could these things be splained away as well?
If not, then what evidence do you require?
17 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by usmc7257Actually, that would be more like #2. Basically, the picture you have for God does not fit what other present to you.
How about this one...
My interpretation of what a God should be doesn't jive with all of the religious documents I have read. If theses are the "facts", I'm not convinced.
Edit: i guess you could chalk that up to number three?
17 Apr 12
Originally posted by JS357I think that this falls under #2 as well. Basically what you internalize as being what God should be does not jive with what you have heard about God thus far.
I would like to find that one of the items on the list applies to me, but do not see one. I have pretty much given up on trying to articulate one for you. I could try the tack of "...because I do not have a coherent idea of a believable God."